What did ABC, CBS, and NBC say about it? Did they do real news or did they do an opinion style interview with someone? ...if that. Interviewing a democrat and interview a republican is not really news. It's part of that squawk box I mentioned. It's killing the news and it's the mass majority "of news" when important issues are discussed.

Rachel is okay. She's still a shill for the democrats in the long run. Once again I have to point out that I despise the 2 party system because it manipulates and propagandizes the USA and spreads massive illegal wars.

Don't leave out the rest of the press that contributes to mass propaganda.

"The divide and conquer technique has been a potent weapon in the arsenal of oppression." "The future of the deep structural changes we seek will not be found in the decaying political machines." - MLK. And since he said that not one of his key issues on fighting poverty has been accomplished by these political machines.

I admit that I trust MSM's MSNBC & their people
I do not judge a person by D or R or G or I or π
Have you seen OWS people on MSNBC ?

I do not love the two party system - but until we can pass the new Amendment XXVIII introduced this week, no other party can leverage in.
Just in case you think I'm BS'ing-
After XXVIII - I advocate -
All political money contributed must go from voters to candidates
All political money spent must come from candidates
[ and imagine what this would do to all parties ]

Other than 60 minutes & the Sunday shows, I rarely listen to NBC CBS ABC

Everyone has their bias, though I do believe NBC has a monopoly on explosives. Hell, just today the AP got busted massively misquoting Rand Paul. That's why I cycle though all the news channels every few weeks. You never know what info's being included or left out.

The first rule of trolling -
don't post a link that proves you are lying:

Predicting an earthquake does not mean you WANT one
Do you understand the difference?

GOP senator: Sequester is going to happen

Posted byCNN's Ashley Killough

(CNN) - Republican Sen. John Barrasso said Sunday the country should be prepared for the sequester and its massive spending cuts to kick in next month, despite Democrats' proposal last week to avert it.

"Let me be very clear - and I'd say this to the president as I say it to you - these spending cuts are going to go through on March 1," the senator from Wyoming said on CNN's "State of the Union."

The across-the-board cuts aimed to reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next decade were supposed to be triggered at the beginning of the year. In the scaled-back fiscal cliff bill, however, Congress managed to postpone the cuts by two months.

With less than two weeks to go, lawmakers face another countdown before the largely dreaded cuts are scheduled to begin. Senate Democrats on Thursday proposed a $110 billion measure to once again delay the cuts.

Democrats want to replace the budget cuts, which Pentagon officials say will have drastic effects on the military, with a combination of increased tax revenue from millionaires through the closing of loopholes, ending agriculture subsidies, and reducing defense spending after the war in Afghanistan ends.

But Barrasso, along with other Republicans in the Senate, was not so pleased with the proposal, especially the provision dealing with tax revenue.

"Taxes are off the table," he told CNN's chief political correspondent Candy Crowley. "The American people need to know tax cuts are off the table and the Republican Party is not in any way going to trade spending cuts for a tax increase."
The senator said there are "much better ways to do these budget cuts," though he did not mention specific proposals.

President Barack Obama vowed during his re-election campaign that the sequester will not happen, and he called on Congress earlier this month to pass a short-term measure to put off the cuts.

But when his chief of staff, Denis McDonough, was questioned about it Sunday morning, McDonough sounded less certain the sequester would be prevented.

"I sure hope it doesn't (happen)," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

To "ensure" the cuts don't take place, McDonough said, the president "will continue to make very reasonable and balanced proposals, as he has time and time again."

Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York sounded optimistic about the issue.
"I think that Democrats have the high ground both substantively and politically and we will win on this issue," he said on "State of the Union."

He argued Republicans have no choice but to "come on board."

"Their arguments are untenable and don't meet the favor of hardly anyone other than themselves and the few whose special interests they're protecting," he added.

Oh those poor Rs just have no other choice but to jump on board. After all, they've never said, recently, that spending is too high or that deficits are a problem. They're just caught up in this unfortunate situation that both parties deliberately created.

It's political theatre and he's playing a role, reading his lines. Don't you get that this is what the sequester is for, deniability? If you can't see that, what is right in front of your face, what's the use.

BTW, the person you bold the quote on is a D, Obama's Chief of Staff, not an R...

This is what the senate R said:

"Let me be very clear - and I'd say this to the president as I say it to you - these spending cuts are going to go through on March 1," the senator from Wyoming said on CNN's "State of the Union."

"as long as these political structures are in power, we have to keep voting for them to keep them in power."

Martin Luther King once said those "that persist in discrimination to retain their monopoly of jobs we have no common ground. To talk of alliances with them is to talk of mutual deception and mutual hypocrisy."

That is how I feel about those financed by banks and corporations and those that vote for war when it is so obvious war is the problem. To talk of an alliance with them is to talk of mutual deception and mutual hypocrisy.

Yah I never disagreed with you on a constitutional amendment. I'm telling you the people funded by banks and corporations will not do anything about this. This is why we need to pay attention in the primaries. Voting based on tv ads is collective stupidity.

I disagree with you on propagandizing politicians that work for the banks.

You might have forgotten more than half the people you propagandize on this forum support the system giving TRILLIONS to banks and corporations and have done absolutely nothing to reverse this trend. In fact they voted to give trillions more in tax payer dollars.

Keep acting like you're high and mighty, one day you'll realize your politicians you propagandize for are part of the problem.

What would happen if these politicians reversed the trillions going to banks and funded health care, housing, and food programs instead? What if they stopped bombing countries and worked on spreadin actual peace? But you say voting for warmongers giving trillions to banks is our only hope. What a joke.

Downvote me all you want you party hacks. You have no moral core if you propagandize for warmongers giving trillions to banks.

Push for Kucinichs, push for Graysons, push for Warrens, that is good! But pushing for those who want to bomb countries and give trillions to banks will not help anyone.

That money you mention can be regulated by the Congress, and it's not being regulated and no legislation is getting pushed to further regulate it. Where is your God now?

“The greatest purveyor of violence in the world : My own Government, I can not be Silent.” ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

The only people who can change money in politics are the people who play the game full throttle - and take that money.
100+ senators & congressmen & the president ADVOCATE this change.
but it cannot be changed by people who lose elections
[ and yes - there are a few exceptions ]

LIE #1 .
From George Zornick:
Marco Rubio’s rebuttal to the State of the Union address was remarkable for being unremarkable—it contained much of the same warmed-over pablum we heard from the stage in Tampa Bay at the Republican National Convention six months ago. President Obama “believes [the government] the cause of our problems” and that “More government isn’t going to help you get ahead. It’s going to hold you back.” There was even a Solyndra reference!

But the most interesting and substantive part of Rubio’s speech was the attack he leveled against healthcare reform. The Affordable Care Act will be implemented over the next—wait, sorry. I’m incredibly thirsty. I need some water before I finish this post.

Okay, back. In any case, as the ACA is implemented over the next few years, Republicans must continue to launch rhetorical bombs at it, because a negative public perception of the law would create cover for Republican governors to deny Medicaid expansion in their state to help the poor, and might also blunt “Obamacare” as a powerful Democratic talking point in 2014 and 2016.

So here’s what Rubio said about the ACA:
Many government programs that claim to help the middle class, often end up hurting them instead. For example, Obamacare was supposed to help middle-class Americans afford health insurance. But now, some people are losing the health insurance they were happy with. And because Obamacare created expensive requirements for companies with more than fifty employees, now many of these businesses aren’t hiring. Not only that; they’re being forced to lay people off and switch from full-time employees to part-time workers.

Rubio is explicitly trying to scare people into thinking they’re about to either lose their health insurance or get fired because of Obamacare. But none of this is true.
Even if papa john said so.

Let’s start with the first claim:
that “some people are losing the health insurance they were happy with.”
Rubio is lying about the fact that in the final telling, ACA is projected to insure 30 million Americans who otherwise don't have health insurance. It’s not immediately clear who Rubio thinks is losing their policies, because after all, insurance companies can no longer just drop people from coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

Rubio goes on to say that “because Obamacare created expensive requirements for companies with more than 50 employees, now many of these businesses aren’t hiring” and others are switching from full-time to part-time workers because of the ACA. Like papa johns was pretending to do. But that’s just not the case.

A study this summer from the Midwest Business Group on Health found that “there is little indication that employers plan to drop healthcare coverage.” The “expensive requirements” Rubio alludes to will be about 2.3 percent, according to one international consulting firm, and other studies show that healthcare reform might ultimately help small businesses because of the subsidies they receive and the fact they are offering a more attractive compensation package for employees. That is exactly what happened in Massachussets under Romneycare.

But what do you expect from a party that
does not believe in global warming and
does believe the world is less than 10,000 years old and
that fracking is safe and
the minimum wage at $9 is too high.